REVIEW ARTICLE

Current Evidence on the Unit Equivalence of Different

Botulinum Neurotoxin A Formulations and Recommendations
for Clinical Practice in Dermatology
SYRUS KARSAI, MD,

AND

CHRISTIAN RAULIN, MDy

BACKGROUND The unit equivalence between the two main Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNTA) preparations, Dysport (Ipsen Ltd., Slough, Berkshire, UK) and BOTOX (Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA), is a matter of
discussion. The UK assay used to test Dysport is more sensitive than the U.S. assay used for BOTOX,
resulting in a different efficacy per unit in both formulations. Ratios ranging from 6:1 to 1:1 can be found
in the literature, but the more recently published literature suggests that 1 unit of BOTOX is equivalent to
approximately 2 to 4 units of Dysport (ratio 2:14:1).
OBJECTIVE Because the number of BoNTA treatments is constantly increasing, these differences warrant a systematic review of published evidence about the unit equivalence of UK and U.S. formulations.
METHODS The review is based on a detailed literature research in all relevant databases (MEDLINE,
PubMed, Cochrane Library, specialist textbooks).
RESULTS The present review supports the recent assumption that dose ratios of less than 3:1
(e.g., 2.5:1 or even 2:1) between Dysport and BOTOX are probably more suitable.
CONCLUSIONS The current evidence is still insufficient, and further investigation of lower dose ratios is
recommended.
The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters.

ven after 15 years of clinical experience, the

difference between the potency units of the two
main Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNTA) products,
Dysport (Ipsen Ltd., Slough, Berkshire, UK) and
BOTOX (Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA), is a source of
confusion. Early studies measured dosage in ng of
toxin. The first double-blind study of the treatment
of torticollis1 employed 100 units of the original
formulation of BOTOX, which was stated to be
equivalent to 40 ng of Botulinum-A toxin. Elston
and Lee2 first switched from BOTOX to Dysport on
a 1:1 weight basis (0.312 ng in the extraocular
muscles for the treatment of strabismus) and found
an unacceptably high frequency of side effects (ptosis
and involvement of other eye muscles). Reducing the

dose to one-fifth (0.0625 ng) yielded good effects.

Quinn and Hallet3 warned of the differences in
weight potency and biological potency between
the two products in 1989, and Jankovic and Brin4
stated that the British toxin was more potent
(40 units/ng) than the American form (2.5 units/ng),
which was associated with a higher incidence of
side effects.
Progress was made when Schantz and Johnson5
found that the weight of toxin used was not relevant
and that a bioassay, the mouse unit (i.e., the LD50
for mice), ought to be employed. However, this did
not solve the problem of comparability of the two
products, and Brin and Blitzer6 pointed out in 1993

Laserklinik Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany; yDepartment of Dermatology, University of Heidelberg,

Heidelberg, Germany
& 2008 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.  Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 
ISSN: 1076-0512  Dermatol Surg 2009;35:18  DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34375.x
1

U N I T E Q U I VA L E N C E O F B o N TA F O R M U L AT I O N S

that the crucial difference was that of unit potency

between the two preparations. They stated that the
reasons for this difference were unknown and
suggested a dose equivalence of 4:1 to 5:1 mouse
units based on a discussion with our European
colleagues. The reason for the disparity in relative
efficacy (the difference in the diluents used in the
mouse assays) was not published until 1994.7,8
For the mouse assays used to standardize each batch
of Dysport, the toxin is diluted in a phosphate buffer
containing gelatine that stabilizes low-concentration
toxins, whereas for the BOTOX assay, saline is used
as the diluent. Therefore, the assay used for Dysport
is more sensitive than the one used for BOTOX.
Hambleton and Pickett,7,8 who measured different
samples of BOTOX and Dysport using the two
assays, first showed this in 1994. A BOTOX unit
was 3.15 times more potent in the Dysport assay,
and a Dysport unit was approximately 2.5 times less
potent (activity declined to 39.7%) in the saline
assay. In the Dysport assay, a unit of BOTOX was
equivalent to 2.87 units of Dysport. In the saline
assay, one Dysport unit was equivalent to a nominal
0.4 units of BOTOX, suggesting a potency ratio of
1:2.52.7 The UK National Institute for Biological
Standards and Control (NIBSC) organized an
extensive international multicenter comparison of
laboratory assays using three BoNTA compounds in
10 laboratories in five countries.9 This independent
work by NIBSC confirmed that the unit ratios are
similar to those obtained for the marketed products
as described by other authors,7,8,10 but the interlaboratory variation remained substantial even when
the same assay protocol was employed.
In addition, the dilution artefact in the saline assay is
higher for Dysport than for BOTOX. Presumably
this is because a vial of Dysport contains less human
serum albumin (0.125 mg) than a vial of BOTOX
(0.5 mg) (for comparison of BoNTA products, see
Rzany and Zielke11). This excipient is added to
prevent adsorption of the toxin molecule on syringe
surfaces and elsewhere. At high dilutions, Dysport
loses more potency than BOTOX,12 relatively

D E R M AT O L O G I C S U R G E RY

speaking, and this effect can be neutralized by

adding serum albumin.13,14 These complicated and
subtle effects remind us that caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of experiments
done with nonstandard dilutions and extrapolating
them to the clinical situation, especially when they
are not relevant to clinical use per se.
The clinical literature on dose equivalence is
extensive but confusing, and many published studies
are not of high quality. A recently published review15
identified just four key articles on head-to-head
comparison of Dysport and BOTOX that are of
sufficient quality to fulfill the criteria of evidencebased medicine. In these studies, unit ratios of 4:1
and 3:1 were tested in patients with blepharospasm
or torticollis, and the joint conclusion was that 3:1 is
more appropriate than 4:1 but that the two products
are not equivalent at this ratio. Despite this, ratios
of 4:1 or even higher are still accepted, and articles
supporting higher ratios have been published
recently,16,17 although these are not head-to-head
controlled trials.
A sound understanding of dosage relationships
between Dysport and BOTOX is required to
optimize treatment in terms of efficacy and safety,
and the repercussions of these relationships are
substantial. Therefore, we decided to analyze the
current literature to find evidence of the most
appropriate dosage ratio of the two BoNTA formulations under discussion.

Methods
This review is based on a detailed literature research
in all relevant databases: MEDLINE (National
Library of Medicine), PubMed (National Library
of Medicine), the Cochrane Library, and specialist
textbooks. Selected key words were: BONTA or
BOTULINUM TOXIN TYPE A and POTENCY
(11 hits), BONTA or BOTULINUM TOXIN
TYPE A and DYSPORT and BOTOX (13 hits),
BONTA or BOTULINUM TOXIN TYPE A and
DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP and COM-

KARSAI AND RAULIN

TABLE 1. Level of Evidence (According to Sackett et al.18) of the Studies Quoted in Results
Evidence
level
Ia

Ib

IIa

Explanation

Studies

Systematic review (SR) of

randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) with homogeneity
RCT with narrow confidence
interval

Sampaio et al.15, Rzany and Nast23

IIb

SR of cohort studies (CS) with

homogeneity
Individual CS or low-quality RCT

IIc

Outcomes research

Expert opinion

Carruthers et al.19,27,28,30, Karsai et al.21, Monheit et al.24,

Ascher et al.26, Rzany et al.29, Ranoux et al.31,
Odergren et al.33, Poewe et al.34, Simonetta-Moreau et al.38,
Talarico-Filho et al.40, Wohlfarth et al.43
Sesardic et al.9, Poewe,32 Rosales et al.45
Bihari,16 Lowe et al.22, Brisinda et al.35, Sampaio et al.36,
NuXgens and Roggenkamper,37 Trindade de Almeida et al.39,
Hexsel,41 de Almeida et al.42
Marchetti et al.17, Heckmann and Schon-Hupka,25
Van den Bergh and Lison,44 Rosales et al.45
Hambleton and Pickett,7 Rzany and Zielke,11 Sommer et al.20

SR, systematic review; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CI, confidence interval; CS, cohort study.

PARATIVE STUDY (64 hits). Published material on

the question of dosage equivalence of Dysport
and BOTOX was weighed according to the standards of evidence-based medicine as outlined by
Sackett and colleagues.18 (Results of a randomized
controlled trial with a valid blinding scheme will be
considered more meaningful than simple outcome
observations or expert opinions.) The level of evidence of the studies quoted in Results is shown
in Table 1.
Results are briefly reviewed in chapters dealing with
the different indications of BoNTA treatment.

Results
Cosmetic Applications (Hyperfunctional Lines)
The majority of clinical trials recommend a unit
equivalence of 3:1 based on the aforementioned
Cochrane review.15 This ratio consistently yields
favorable results with low toxicity in the treatment
of forehead wrinkles.19,20
In a randomized controlled double-blind split-face
trial,21 a dosage scheme of 3:1 yielded more
pronounced effects of Dysport than of BOTOX in

the treatment of hyperfunctional forehead lines.

At this ratio, the inhibition of electromyographic
activity and the clinical effect were more prolonged
after treatment with Dysport. This makes studies on
lower conversion ratios of 2.5:1 or even 2:1 appropriate and promising. Also, the manufacturers
recommended doses in Germany (50 U for Dysport
and 20 U for BOTOX) suggest that a 2.5:1 dose
conversion ratio is more appropriate.
By contrast, Lowe and colleagues recently published
a study in which the effect of Dysport was less sustained than that of BOTOX in a 2.5:1 dosage regimen.22 However, there are some points in this study
that render its results questionable. The effect of
BOTOX apparently increased later in the observation period, which has not been observed in any
other study or in clinical practice. This might not be
a drug-related effect but could instead be due to
variability of the clinical scoring method used, and
this weakens the conclusions of Lowe and colleagues
substantially.23
According to a Phase II Food and Drug Administration trial of Dysport in the treatment of glabellar
lines, a dosage of as low as 20 U is effective in most
cases, supporting a unit equivalence of 2.5:1.24

3 5 : 1 : J A N U A RY 2 0 0 9

U N I T E Q U I VA L E N C E O F B o N TA F O R M U L AT I O N S

These results are in accordance with a previous

independent trial;25 nonetheless, higher dosages
of 50 U have been employed frequently (e.g., Ascher
and colleagues26). According to dose-ranging studies
by Carruthers and colleagues,19,27,28 the minimum
effective dosage of BOTOX is 20 U in women and
40 U in men, supporting a possible unit equivalence
below 2:1.

ern Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS)

pain score, duration of action) but also at 3:1 (Tsui
score, TWSTRS pain score). Side effects, particularly
swallowing disturbances, were higher with Dysport,
significantly so (P = .03) for the 4:1 dose. The
authors and Poewe32 concluded that the conversion
ratio between the two products should be less than
3:1 in clinical use.

Basically, whatever the rating method or product

used, the results of all published studies are remarkably similar.24,26,29,30 Peak effect was seen 2 to
4 weeks after injection, followed by a slow decline
over the next 12 to 16 weeks. It has also been clearly
demonstrated that, for a variety of indications, a
conversion ratio of at least no more than 3:1 may
be assumed for Dysport.3135

These four studies are the only ones that fulfilled the
Cochrane criteria for evidence-based medicine.
Although the authors of these studies all concluded
that the effects of the two products were equivalent,
the effects and side effects of Dysport were consistently higher in all four studies and at both dose
ratios. These differences were not statistically
significant but strongly suggest that even 3:1 is
still too high a conversion ratio. Sampaio and
colleagues themselves concluded that 3:1 was more
appropriate than 4:1 but that the products were not
equivalent at this ratio.

Diseases with Muscle Hypertonus

In an early study on the treatment of blepharospasm
and hemifacial spasm, Sampaio and colleagues36
found no difference between efficacy and safety of
Dysport and BOTOX in a 4:1 dosage ratio; other
ratios were not tested. The more extensive crossover
(each patient receiving both treatments) study of
NuXgens and Roggenkamper37 showed that the
effect of BOTOX at this 4:1 ratio lasted marginally
longer (not significant) but that this was at the
cost of statistically significantly more side effects,
particularly ptosis (P = .01).
Odergren and colleagues33 investigated a 3:1 dose
ratio in patients with cervical dystonia. The
differences in responder rates, duration of effect, and
assessment of efficacy rates were not statistically
significant, and the authors concluded that 3
Dysport units were equivalent to 1 BOTOX unit
in clinical use.
More recently, Ranoux and colleagues31 treated 60
cervical dystonia patients in a double-blind,
randomized crossover study with 4:1 and 3:1 dose
ratios. Dysport was significantly more effective than
BOTOX not only at 4:1 (Tsui score, Toronto West-

D E R M AT O L O G I C S U R G E RY

In treatment of anal fissures, Brisinda and colleagues35 found no difference in efficacy and toxicity
of Dysport and BOTOX in 100 patients employing
a 3:1 unit equivalence. By contrast, Bihari16 found
a higher efficacy of BOTOX after a switch from
Dysport at a 4:1 or even 5:1 dosage ratio in a cohort
of 48 patients with blepharospasm, cervical dystonia,
or hemifacial spasm. Quite astoundingly, the rate of
side effects was higher with Dysport. A few methodological questions have to be mentioned in a critical
light: First, the patients were a sample from a population of undefined size. The background of the
study was the temporary nonavailability of Dysport
in Hungary, and patients were offered the choice of
switching to BOTOX or waiting until Dysport
became available again. The number of patients who
opted for the latter is undisclosed, as is the number of
patients who opted for BOTOX but refused to participate in the study. Moreover, the absolute point
differences in TWSTRS pain score are analyzed
without information about the baseline values,
making it hard to judge the extent of improvement
objectively. Clinical improvement was exclusively

KARSAI AND RAULIN

scored according to the patients subjective

assessment.

These data have only been published as abstracts, but

they suggest a dose conversion ratio of 2:1 or less.

In the REAL DOSE study,17 the switch between

both BoNTA preparations in treatment of cervical
dystonia and blepharospasm followed a conversion
ratio of less than 4:1 in only 21% of 114 cases, and a
ratio of less than 3:1 was not reported; the average
ratio was 4.7:1. The dose ratios, however, varied
remarkably between participating centers, ranging
from 5.3:1 (UK) to 3.8:1 (Czech Republic) for cervical dystonia and from 4.5:1 (Poland) to 2.8:1
(Norway) for blepharospasm, indicating substantial
variation in dosage-finding strategies.

The mouse assay data also generally corroborate a

dose conversion ratio of less than 3:1. Calculating
dose ratios across all studies cited7,9,44 yields dose
ratios of between 1.7 and 3.2:1. Experiments performed by the manufacturers of BOTOX using the
mouse Digital Abduction Score (DAS) model have
found the LD50 ratio to be approximately 2:1. In
these experiments, the efficacy ratio was higherF
approximately 4:1. This has been interpreted as
showing different safety margins for the two products, but these results have not been confirmed
independently. Rosales and colleagues45 did DAS
experiments in rats and found a ratio of 2.5:1 for
efficacy and diffusion into the thigh muscle.

Hyperhidrosis
Based on a 4:1 conversion factor, Simonetta-Moreau
and colleagues38 found a higher efficacy of Dysport
in palmar hyperhidrosis. This was paired with a
somewhat higher toxicity (weakness of thumb-index
pinch), indicating that a lower ratio would be
preferable.
A recent study analyzing the anhidrotic area in 20
patients with forehead hyperhidrosis39 suggested a
greater diffusion area of Dysport, possibly hindering
the exact localization of the desired effect. As an
accompanying result, the study failed to demonstrate differences in efficacy between both formulations at ratios of 2.5:1, 3:1, and 4:1, suggesting that
a ratio of 2.5:1 is at least equipotent.
Finally, Talarico-Filho and colleagues40 found no
difference in efficacy at a 3:1 ratio in the treatment
of axillary hyperhidrosis in 10 patients.
Experimental Evidence
Preliminary data on action halos41,42 (i.e.,
anhidrotic circles around the site of injection) seen in
the forehead of human subjects support a ratio of less
than 3:1. This is also the case in another human
model, the Extensor Digitorum Brevis compound
action potential, on which an extensive series of
comparative measurements was recently performed.43

Discussion
The effect of BoNTA as a muscle-relaxing agent is
undisputed in cosmetic and medical settings. As
outlined in the introduction, once physicians realized
that there was a difference in unit potency between
the two BoNTA assays, a conversion factor of 4 to
5:1 was assumed. This thought has proved surprisingly persistent, despite the fact that extensive comparison of the assays in different laboratories and
comparative clinical trials conducted in accordance
with Cochrane standards of evidence-based medicine
suggest that 3:1 is a more appropriate conversion
ratio. However, lower ratios have not yet been tested
in such head-to-head trials, and the data from these
studies indicate that 3:1 is still too high. The overwhelming majority of published studies support this
ratio as a ceiling, and it should not be exceeded.
Instead, a lower ratio of 2.5:1 or even 2:1 deserves
further research, because present evidence suggests
that this is probably sufficient in terms of efficacy
and should therefore be preferred because of
lower treatment cost and a broader safety margin.
Also, a meta-analysis15 has shown that the two
formulations are not bioequivalent regardless of
the dose relationship and that Dysport and BOTOX

3 5 : 1 : J A N U A RY 2 0 0 9

U N I T E Q U I VA L E N C E O F B o N TA F O R M U L AT I O N S

have intrinsic differences that need to be elucidated

in further studies.
In the highly elective environment of forehead line
treatment, clinical trials should be designed to be on
the safe side in terms of treatment tolerability. It is
certainly more acceptable to achieve a less-thanperfect effect than to induce side effects, which can
be substantial with a biologically highly active substance such as BoNTA. This further supports the
aforementioned recommendation of future trials
with dosage ratios of 2.5:1 or even 2:1.
Proper use of Dysport involves a learning curve even
(or especially) for experienced BOTOX injectors,
which will slow its implementation on a large scale
unless the cost difference significantly favors Dysport. Studies sponsored by the manufacturers of
BOTOX tend to support higher ratios, and those
sponsored by the manufacturers of Dysport consistently support lower ratios. The reason for this bias
might simply be financial: The higher the ratio, the
lower the cost benefit when Dysport is used instead
of BOTOX. Because cosmetic treatment is not
covered by any health care system but is paid for by
the patient, the price of the drug is an important
issue. This is especially true because the huge
American marketFto date the domain of BOTOX,
which has FDA approval for temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe
glabellar lines in adult patients r65 years of age46
Fmay soon be opened to Dysport, whose approval
is still pending (The product is commonly referred to
as Reloxin in the United States and Dysport for
medical and aesthetic markets outside the United
States.) Bearing this in mind, published results have
to be discussed carefully and critically, especially in
studies that are affiliated with the manufacturers of
either product.
Whatever the product or indication, the BoNTA
dosage applied is critical. The dose efficacy curve is a
classic parabola,47 and at the top of this curve,
administering more toxin will not create a proportionately greater effect. The excess toxin will,

D E R M AT O L O G I C S U R G E RY

however, diffuse away from the site of application

and increase the risk of side effects. The principle of
as much as needed, but as little as possible should
always be borne in mind. This approach maximizes
therapeutic efficacy, reduces the risk of side effects
and antibody formation, and last but not least,
minimizes treatment costs.
Finally, we should ask whether the results in the
treatment model of frown lines and wrinkles are
applicable to use in other indications, such as dystonia. There are several factors that should be
taken into consideration: tolerances of potencies
of the vials (as discussed), different potencies in
muscles and in skin, differences in dose-response
curves between small doses per injection site (cosmetic indications, blepharospasm, and hyperhidrosis) and high doses (spasticity, torticollis). In our
opinion, however, the dose conversion ratio between
the two products is primarily a function of the
different assays used, and there must be a single ratio
within the limits of experimental error. It should always be kept in mind that the permitted tolerances
for the potency of a BoNTA preparation is 7 20%
to 25% according to the European Pharmacopeia.
Given this standard, any differences in ratios for
different muscle groups might be due to suboptimal
application techniquesFand the evidence that such
ratios actually exist is spurious. The best dilution
and positioning of the injections are all factors that
should be optimized for any target muscle group. It
has also been claimed that the two products have
different diffusion characteristics,39 but in our
opinion, this is a dosing artefact due to the continued
tendency to give relatively high doses of Dysport,
presumably because of the historical development
outlined above. A recent review of head-to-head,
randomized controlled trials15 concluded that Dysport tends to have greater efficacy, longer duration,
and greater frequency of adverse effectsFa possible
indication that relatively high doses of Dysport are
being used. To resolve this matter, the current approach to titrating dosageFwhich the majority of
trials followFis not suitable. Randomized controlled double-blind head-to-head comparisons em-

KARSAI AND RAULIN

ploying fixed dosage schemes (e.g., 3:1, 2.5:1, 2:1)

are needed.
Further head-to-head controlled trials comparing
dose ratios lower than 3:1 certainly appear to be
justified according to the current evidence, and we
recommend the double-blind split-face study design
(as employed by Karsai and colleagues21 recently) as
an easily accessible human model that is nearer the
clinical situation than the DAS test and easier to
perform than the Extensor Digitorum Brevis compound action potential test.
For the time being, the avoidance of side effects may
dictate an individual dosing scheme starting with the
lowest possible dose and upward titration (if necessary) until reliable information of dosage ratios
between Dysport and BOTOX becomes available.

References
1. Tsui JKC, Eisen A, Stoessl AJ, et al. Double blind study of
botulinum toxin in spasmodic torticollis. Lancet 1986;2:2457.
2. Elston JS, Lee J. Clinical use of botulinum toxin. Lancet
1988;2:1139.
3. Quinn N, Hallett M. Dose standardisation of botulinum toxin.
Lancet 1989;1:964.

12. Bigalke H. Botulinumtoxine: Wirksamkeit und Antigenizitat. Klin

Neurophysiol 2001;32:2102.
13. Bigalke H, Irma A, Dengler R. Botulinum A toxin: Dysport
improvement of biological availability. Exp Neurol 2001;168:
16270.
14. Wohlfarth K, Goschel H, Frevert J, et al. Botulinum A toxins:
units versus units. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol
1997;355:33540.
15. Sampaio C, Costa J, Ferreira JJ. Clinical comparability of
marketed formulations of botulinum toxin. Mov Disord
2004;19(Suppl 8):12936.
16. Bihari K. Safety, effectiveness, and duration of effect of BOTOX
after switching from Dysport for blepharospasm, cervical dystonia, and hemifacial spasm dystonia, and hemifacial spasm. Curr
Med Res Opin 2005;21:4338.
17. Marchetti A, Magar R, Findley L, et al. Retrospective evaluation
of the dose of Dysport and BOTOX in the management of cervical
dystonia and blepharospasm: the REAL DOSE study. Mov Disord
2005;20:93744.
18. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-based
medicine. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
19. Carruthers JA, Lowe NJ, Menter MA, et al. A multicenter,
double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the
efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of
glabellar lines. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46:8409.
20. Sommer B, Bergfeld D, Sattler G. Consensus recommendations on
the use of botulinum toxin type A in aesthetic medicine. J Dtsch
Dermatol Ges 2007;(Suppl 1):129.
21. Karsai S, Adrian R, Hammes S, et al. A randomized doubleblinded study of the effect of Dysports/Reloxins and Botoxs on
forehead wrinkles and EMG activity. Arch Dermatol
2007;143:14479.

4. Jankovic J, Brin MF. Therapeutic uses of botulinum toxin. N Engl

J Med 1991;324:118694.

22. Lowe P, Patnaik R, Lowe N. Comparison of two formulations of

botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines: a
double-blind, randomized study. J Am Acad Dermatol
2006;55:97580.

5. Schantz EJ, Johnson EA. Properties and use of botulinum toxin

and other microbial neurotoxins in medicine. Microbiol Rev
1992;56:8099.

23. Rzany B, Nast A. Head-to-head studies of botulinum toxin A in

aesthetic medicine: which evidence is good enough? J Am Acad
Dermatol 2007;56:10667.

6. Brin MF, Blitzer A. Botulinum toxin: dangerous terminology

errors. J R Soc Med 1993;86:4934.

24. Monheit G, Carruthers A, Brandt F, Rand R. A randomized,

double-blind, placebo-controlled study of botulinum toxin type A
for the treatment of glabellar lines: determination of optimal dose.
Dermatol Surg 2007;33(1 Spec No.):519.

7. Hambleton P, Pickett AM. Potency equivalence of botulinum

toxin preparations. J R Soc Med 1994;87:719.
8. Pickett AM, Hambleton P. Dose standardisation of botulinum
toxin. Lancet 1994;344:4745.
9. Sesardic D, Leung T, Gaines Das R. Role for standards in assays of
botulinum toxins: international collaborative study of three
preparations of botulinum type A toxin. Biologicals 2003;31:
26576.
10. Pearce LB, Borodic GE, First ER, MacCallum RD. Measurement
of botulinum toxin activity: evaluation of the lethality assay.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1994;128:6977.
11. Rzany B, Zielke H. Overview of botulinum toxin. In: Rzany B, De
Maio M, editors. Botulinum toxin in aesthetic medicine. Berlin:
Springer; 2007. p. 19.

25. Heckmann M, Schon-Hupka G. Quantification of the efficacy of

botulinum toxin type A by digital image analysis. J Am Acad
Dermatol 2001;45:50814.
26. Ascher B, Zakine B, Kestemont P, et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety
of 3 doses of botulinum toxin A in the treatment of glabellar lines.
J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:22333.
27. Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Said S. Dose-ranging study of
botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar rhytids in
females. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:41422.
28. Carruthers A, Carruthers J. Prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, dose-ranging study of botulinum toxin type

3 5 : 1 : J A N U A RY 2 0 0 9

U N I T E Q U I VA L E N C E O F B o N TA F O R M U L AT I O N S

A in men with glabellar rhytids. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:

1297303.
29. Rzany B, Ascher B, Fratila A, et al. Efficacy and safety of 3- and 5injection patterns (30 and 50 U) of botulinum toxin A (dysport)
for the treatment of wrinkles in the glabella and the central
forehead region. Arch Dermatol 2006;142:3206.

39. Trindade de Almeida AR, Marques E, de Almeida J, et al. Pilot

study comparing the diffusion of two formulations of botulinum
toxin type A in patients with forehead hyperhidrosis. Dermatol
Surg 2007;33(1 Spec No.):3743.

30. Carruthers JD, Lowe NJ, Menter MA, et al. Double-blind,

placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of botulinum
toxin type A for patients with glabellar lines. Plast Reconstr Surg
2003;112:108998.

40. Talarico-Filho S, Mendonca DO, Nascimento M, et al. A doubleblind, randomized, comparative study of two type A botulinum
toxins in the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
Dermatol Surg 2007;33(1 Spec No.):4450.

31. Ranoux D, Gury C, Fondarai J, et al. Respective potencies of

Botox and Dysport: a double blind, randomised, crossover study
in cervical dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;72:
45962.

41. Hexsel DM. Equipotent doses of botulinum toxin type A products

share same radius of action. Dermatol Times 2005;9:66.

32. Poewe W. Respective potencies of Botox and Dysport: a double

blind, randomised, crossover study in cervical dystonia. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;72:430.
33. Odergren T, Hjaltason H, Kaakkola S, et al. A double blind,
randomised, parallel group study to investigate the dose equivalence of Dysports and Botoxs in the treatment of cervical dystonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;64:612.
34. Poewe W, Deuschl G, Nebe A, et al. What is the optimal dose of
botulinum toxin A in the treatment of cervical dystonia? Results
of a double blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study using
Dysports. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;64:137.
35. Brisinda G, Albanese A, Cadeddu F, et al. Botulinum neurotoxin
to treat chronic anal fissure: results of a randomized Botox vs.
Dysport controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:
695701.
36. Sampaio C, Ferreira JJ, Simoes F, et al. DYSBOT: a single-blind,
randomized parallel study to determine whether any differences
can be detected in the efficacy and tolerability of two formulations
of botulinum toxin type AFDysport and BotoxFassuming a
ratio of 4:1. Mov Disord 1997;12:10138.
37. NuXgens Z, Roggenkamper P. Comparison of two botulinum
neurotoxin preparations in the treatment of essential blepharospasm. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1997;235:1979.
38. Simonetta-Moreau M, Cauhepe C, Magues JP, Senard JM.
A double-blind, randomized, comparative study of Dysport vs.

Botox in primary palmar hyperhidrosis. Br J Dermatol

2003;149:10415.

D E R M AT O L O G I C S U R G E RY

42. de Almeida A, Marques J, de Almeida J, et al. Pilot study comparing the diffusion characteristics of two formulations of
botulinum toxin type A in patients with forehead hyperhidrosis.
American Academy of Dermatology: 64th Annual Meeting;
March 2006.
43. Wohlfarth K, Wegner F, Schwandt I, et al. Pharmacokinetic
properties of different preparations of botulinum neurotoxin
type A. Poster presented at the 5th International Conference on
Basic and Therapeutic Aspects of Botulinum and Tetanus Toxins.
Denver, CO, June 2325, 2005.
44. Van den Bergh PY, Lison DF. Dose standardization of botulinum
toxin. Adv Neurol 1998;78:2315.
45. Rosales R, Bigalke H, Dressler D. Pharmacology of botulinum
toxin: differences between type A preparations. Eur J Neur
2006;13:210.
46. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cder/
biologics/products/botuall041202.htm (accessed January 2008).
47. Sloop RR, Escutin RO, Matus JA, et al. Dose response curve of
human extensor digitorum brevis muscle function to intramuscularly injected botulinum toxin type A. Neurology
1996;46:13826.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Christian

Raulin, MD, Kaiserstrasse 104, 76133 Karlsruhe,
Germany, or e-mail: info@raulin.de